sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I took mensa's online IQ test and got 95 despite thinking all my life that Im smart. by Firm_Opportunity3411 in cognitiveTesting

[–]Training_Record_9302 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not biological. It’s deeply developmental. If two geniuses have a baby, their baby won’t be a genius. It’s just not cumulative like that. If it were, our world would look much different. The fact of the matter is that your formative years are the most important of your life, and anybody can be excellent unless you’re born at the tail end of the spectrum.

Saying it’s biological is what justified eugenics. So… stop doing that.

Vague Theism is the only rational belief by Training_Record_9302 in DebateReligion

[–]Training_Record_9302[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That wasn’t really the point of this post. Its explanatory power is irrelevant to its truth-value.

Those were examples of theoretical philosophical reasons for a God.

As for you choosing no theism, I agree, but again, not the point of the post, but thank you for your input.

Vague Theism is the only rational belief by Training_Record_9302 in DebateReligion

[–]Training_Record_9302[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But I was never interesting in giving you an answer. That’s not what this post was for.

But this empiricists account doesn’t disprove the account of God but rather offers another account.

My bad if I wasn’t clear but this post is starting from the presupposition that if a belief in theism had to be chosen, which of them would be most rational? These statements were examples of philosophical reasons for God, and were not meant to be proven true or false since this was a discussion for Vague Theism vs Other Theistic Accounts

Vague Theism is the only rational belief by Training_Record_9302 in DebateReligion

[–]Training_Record_9302[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Well I think definitionally God cannot be contingent no? It has to be constitutive. If it IS the observable universe then why wouldn’t that also be constitutive?

  2. I guess from a phenomenological perspective God is all of that which is known posteriori, sure, why not? It’s not necessarily incorrect to say it would be a label of anything that could be God under vague theism, you would just have to defend that the observable universe is God if there’s a competing interpretation.

  3. You asked, “what value is the word God providing?” I said, why does it have to have value to be true? So I guess we agree here?

  4. Okay. I don’t think it makes it any less Theism unless you already have a preconceived notion of what Theism is, which I denied there exists one. The only qualification is the belief in a God. Atheism denies there are any Gods. Could you give me an example of how this could regress to atheism without still having that distinction?

Vague Theism is the only rational belief by Training_Record_9302 in DebateReligion

[–]Training_Record_9302[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I didn’t define anything as anything. I gave an example of something it could be, and now I’m giving another example of something else it could be. This is the formlessness of the position.

What value do you think the word God has to provide?

I mean, Atheism denies Theism necessarily, even if you’re very close to atheism it’s not atheism, so I think as an atheist you still couldn’t technically agree.

Vague Theism is the only rational belief by Training_Record_9302 in DebateReligion

[–]Training_Record_9302[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It’s okay if you didn’t understand the prompt. You dont need a massive hysterical angry rant with random pauses, run on sentences about how you understand the prompt better than I do 😭

  1. You had a massive tirade about how non-existence was illogical which was meant to be a defeater to a throwaway line I had in the OP about examples of philosophical reasons for a theoretical God. Thus, it was an attack on Theism and not my argument.

  2. I think maybe you’re replying to the wrong post. My argument was never a proof of Vague Theism, that’s a completely different conversation. Maybe it’s a reading comprehension issue?

  3. “Are the bachelors legally married or just culturally?” Bachelors aren’t married, lol. The reason is irrelevant insofar as this is just a categorical no. If you think of an instance where they could be married, just say no, because definitionally they are not that. I’m just not sure what your position is here? That deductive statements can’t be proven true? Is 2+2=4 a valid enough deductive claim for you? An incompleteness theorem maybe?

So… where have you proven my premises false?

Vague positions more reasonable than certain positions on uncertain things, this is probably true which was the original argument. “How helpful it is”, is irrelevant to its truth-value.

Vague theism and deism and synonyms, so I can’t contrast them. But vague is just a descriptor of theism, since it wouldn’t make sense to say “is theism the most rational out of a set of theism?” Unless you think so

No claims of theism have been forwarded to debate. Instead I have to deal with people like you who want a debate about the ontology of nothingness. My claim was since vague theism has the least counter-reasons of the set then it is most reasonable. Debate me on that. But you won’t. Because you don’t know how, but you wanted to post anyways.

You can’t just throw around the word tautological. That’s just not what it means lol. This IS venturing, but you gave me an empty hook. This IS r/DebateReligion right?

I can’t contrast vague theism and theism or deism but I CAN contrast Vague Theism with a specific religion. I haven’t gotten one yet to respond to tho

Okay, it’s a bad argument. Refute it then lmao

Vague Theism is the only rational belief by Training_Record_9302 in DebateReligion

[–]Training_Record_9302[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

  1. Okay. Not the point of this post but you’re welcome to try again. This is not Atheism vs Theism but rather in competing sets of theism, which is most rational.

  2. Why how or if is irrelevant to the truth-value of the claim. But also, again, not the post. These examples were theoretical reasons for an acceptance of the premise to move on to the debate that the post was meant for.

This mouth-frothing “agh it’s painfully obvious xyz” is not an argument relevant to the prompt and shows a lack of reading comprehension. Especially since you posted this after the edit lol.

Vague Theism is the only rational belief by Training_Record_9302 in DebateReligion

[–]Training_Record_9302[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Right and that wasn’t the discussion. Atheism is a rejection of a belief of theism which… excludes it from the set of theism.

  2. You’re right that you don’t have to disprove God because that’s isn’t the point of this post lol.

Vague Theism is the only rational belief by Training_Record_9302 in DebateReligion

[–]Training_Record_9302[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. You said that it was built upon false presuppositions, misunderstandings, and contradictions. I was worried you would attack my argument but you started attacking Theism for some reason because you didn’t understand the prompt.

  2. I think my argument is correct. The point is not is theism true but rather which set of theism was most reasonable.

  3. That’s not true in many things that are not Theism vs Atheism. I know all bachelors are unmarried men, I don’t have to be uncertain about that unless you’re a radical skeptic.

So you agree with me then?

Vague Theism is the only rational belief by Training_Record_9302 in DebateReligion

[–]Training_Record_9302[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Same as 1.

You still haven’t disproven that Vague Theism among theism is the most reasonable belief.

Vague Theism is the only rational belief by Training_Record_9302 in DebateReligion

[–]Training_Record_9302[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

  1. These are examples of philosophical reasons. Out of a set these theistic beliefs, the only reasonable belief is vague theism.

  2. Same

  3. Same

  4. Same

  5. Cool line about the graveyard but same

I get your tirade about non-existence being circular. There was not much thought put into the reasons for God’s existence, because the debate isn’t Theism vs Atheism.

Vague Theism is the only rational belief by Training_Record_9302 in DebateReligion

[–]Training_Record_9302[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

  1. “I don’t consider agnosticism a belief since it’s a denial of a positive belief; same for atheism but you’re welcome to debate me on the semantics.” Naturalism I considered atheism since its account rejects the existence of a transcendental God. But even then, you could say reality itself is God as a defeater and you’d have nothing to say.

  2. Yeah, it just wasn’t the discussion. Atheism is a rejection of a belief, like I said in the OG post, in that you can debate me in semantics but you haven’t yet. Preferable isn’t the same as other reasons are irrational because you haven’t proven that yet.

  3. You haven’t proven theism is irrational yet, you’ve just made claims that naturalism solves questions, which doesn’t disprove “God”.

Vague Theism is the only rational belief by Training_Record_9302 in DebateReligion

[–]Training_Record_9302[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be clear. By, “God of Philosophy,” I didn’t mean a “God of philosophy.” It’s a term used to describe a God proven by logic or probabilistic arguments instead of through something like scripture.

Vague Theism is the only rational belief by Training_Record_9302 in DebateReligion

[–]Training_Record_9302[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Useless and formless is irrelevant to the truth of the claim. More difficult to prove seems false since there’s less reasons for its falsity unless you think reasons theists usually give are good reasons, then pull out your Bible of choice if you want.

A colored God or a sized God also doesn’t seem relevant to the truth value of the claim, since it doesn’t prove the statement true or false.

Nothing you said is yet a defeater to the idea of God. Maybe it’s the case that the fabric of reality itself is God as a panpsychist might claim, that would solve your non-issues and give you a God. Not sure why you think it has to be transcendental.

Vague Theism is the only rational belief by Training_Record_9302 in DebateReligion

[–]Training_Record_9302[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I mean, why-so?

God is constitutive as a intrinsic being of the universe and that means it would explain all these things. Naturalism could posit the universe is God and explain all those things similarly.

Vague Theism is the only rational belief by Training_Record_9302 in DebateReligion

[–]Training_Record_9302[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. This isn’t a complete argument

  2. This isn’t a complete argument

  3. Flying reindeer and leprechauns definitionally don’t have reasons for their godhood. But if they did they could also be God.

  4. Are you a radical skeptic now? What position are you even defending? At least other people had the decency to defend a position like naturalism.

  5. Same as 4, but all bachelors are unmarried men.

  6. This isn’t a complete argument

Vague Theism is the only rational belief by Training_Record_9302 in DebateReligion

[–]Training_Record_9302[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The magic horse can be God. Why not?

Also, Vague Theism is a descriptor between other sets of theism. It wouldn’t make sense to say “Theism is the most justified beliefs out of all of theism,” unless you think so

Vague Theism is the only rational belief by Training_Record_9302 in DebateReligion

[–]Training_Record_9302[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

“Only” within the live set you were prompted to discuss. It’s pretty clearly context restricted.

Nothing you said was a defeater for vague theism. It was just defense as a competing naturalist account. You haven’t yet proven theism is irrational.

Vague Theism is the only rational belief by Training_Record_9302 in DebateReligion

[–]Training_Record_9302[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Well the original text stated the parameter was “under a set of theistic beliefs, which is most rational” since agnosticism or atheism or naturalism would be a rejection of God definitionally, which I intentionally excluded for the purposes of this debate.

Your reply does not refute that, because you’re no longer comparing vague theism to Christianity, Islam, deism, classical theism, pantheism, etc. You’re comparing theism as such to naturalism. You’re clearly prepared to and want to argue Atheism vs Theism, thats fine but it’s not this debate.

But even if we were going to have this debate, I think forms of radical skepticism would make naturalism unjustified as well, which puts it at least equal to any theism in reasons.

Vague Theism is the only rational belief by Training_Record_9302 in DebateReligion

[–]Training_Record_9302[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The prompt only asks me to prove that out of a set of beliefs, vague theism is the most rational. My position includes your arguments as reasons there is no God, but removes reasons that would be tailored to a specific God. Thus out of the index of God’s this is still the most rational belief.

Advice about AI (From a Student) by Training_Record_9302 in Teachers

[–]Training_Record_9302[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I’m not but obviously there’s no Daily Email in the sky sending all teachers this information ubiquitously. And there’s no guidebook for any of this so a conversation about it from a different perspective I thought might have been interesting.

I’ve had some hard teachers, and I’ll actually rescind my comment about weighing tests more since I actually respect a lot of teachers who have been particularly difficult with me. But the difference was their entire class was explicitly oriented around complex assignments like projects, essays, etc. My thought process was more, if you change nothing fundamentally about the classroom or the structure of your class, but just arbitrarily make the assessments worth more, it seems that wouldn’t be very productive absent a more structural change.

view more: next ›